"The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

This is no small matter as Churchill is, with proper sincerity, equating Islam's treatment of women with traditional slavery in all its abject squalor and ugliness.

Condell's biting condemnation of feminists and the cultural relativism needed to abandon any criticism of what is so cleary, Abject Gender Apartheid, is window dressing for a much more serious and nettlesome issue.

While the burqa may not be cut into the stone of Islamic doctrine, the unanimous and enduring guilt of women for leading men astray is.

According to whatever plagarized Abramic roots that Islam may claim, the paradise myth is used to blame all womankind―in perpetuity, no less―for Man's expulsion from the Garden of Eden.

It is for this reason that Muslim women are prohibited from displaying so much as a lock of hair or well-turned ankle. Such exhibitions will only ignite the unquenchable lusts of even the most reasonable men and precipitate lust, rape and societal mayhem in general.

Thus are women, Muslim and kufar alike, relegated to the position of chattel and, rest assured, there is little to ZERO hope that this doctrinal aspect of women's status should, would or could ever change by an iota.

I have always advocated banning of the burqa and niqab for security reasons. I have also maintained for some time that Islam's policy of Abject Gender Apartheid is, in and of itself, reason enough to justify a permanent prohibition of Mohammedism from the modern world.

Add in the extraneous and horrendous elements of terrorism, capital punishment for apostasy, dhimmitude, polygamy and Islam's other various and sundry affronts to any civilized mind and it becomes patently clear that:

No less an authority that Al Quaeda's second in command, Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri is on record as calling veiled women foot soldiers of Islam. Their use is to demoralize the host population with constant in-your-face hostility to their ways.

Degree of veiling is correlated with degree of fundamentalism and extremism. Many if not most of these women despise the non-Muslim world they peer at through their eye slits.

Well, well, well, what have we here? "Personal Advanced Cloaking Devices" --PACDs-- for the 21st. Century!! Impressive, most impressive! (count the ways) Who would have thought 25 years ago that ANY women in WESTERN EUROPE would want to wear such things?

Keep in mind that feminists tell us that these "Advanced Cloaking Devices" are 'the response of a minority living in a hostile climate'. See, Western society is so bigoted, that women of 'misunderstood minorities' are driven to wear these things as a "defense mechanism". Seriously, feminists say so!!

And Oh, we Westerners must show 'tolerance' and 'respect' for 'diversity'. It is obviously too much to expect 'migrant women' to live under 'oppresive Western law' when they are entitled to be treated well under Shariah! After all, Shariah says men MUST treat women as KINDLY as men treated their DONKEYS, HORSES, AND COWS in the MIDDLE AGES!! WHO COULD POSSIBLY BE SO RACIST TO DENY THIS ALL HAS GREAT MERIT IN THE 21ST. Century??? AFTER ALL, IT IS NON-WESTERN, AND THUS PART OF THE STRUGGLE AGAINST 'WESTERN IMPERIALISM'

What did that potentate of progressivism, Obama say?

"It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit. For instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim women should wear. We can't disguise hostility to any religion behind the pretense of libealism."

Beware the secular inquisition!

All right, folks, seriously:

THE WESTERN ELITE ARE THE REAL BUNCH OF CRACKPOTS!!! Muslims don't need nukes, they can shout "Western Imperialism".

Get these CRACKPOT Western "leaders" OUT of POWER before it is too late!!

The precedent of using women in burka to be suicide bombers already exists in the middle east.

This video is correct - it is a security concern. There are laws about being identifiable in public. It is illegal to have extremely dark window tint on your vehicle in most states. You cannot walk into a bank with a ski mask on without exciting concern.

It should be very clear that we do not allow a shrouded figure to fly on an airplane, use public buildings or public transportation etc.

This speaker is right on from beginning to end. Thanks for posting him!

thll, no more a feminist issue than the yellow star worn by Jews in the 30's in Germany was a racist issue. They wore it voluntarily, for otherwise there'd be no end to the trouble that would befall them.

It's about intimidation. Intimidation that takes place away from the eye of the public, intimidation that makes women 'voluntarily' wear the sign of being owned by the men in their families.

Frankly,I don't care what it says in the koran about black tents. Condell seems to imply that if the koran commanded it then it's OK.As we all know the koran commands that muslims kill the unbeliever wherever they find them.That said,he makes a good point all the same

"The MNR notes that since the arrival of the Sarkozy era, we have witnessed a rapid development of Islam in France. The creation of the CFCM (French Council of the Muslim Faith) by the current president of the Republic was an encouragement to Muslims to develop and to, eventually, impose their law, a law that is, however, incompatible with the laws of the French Republic.

After dietary concessions, the official segregation of women, and the authorizations to build new mosques that are often illegally financed by the taxpayers, Islam progresses, as it has been urged to do for seven years, with the on-going aid of the UMP party.

The MNR therefore considers that the UMP deputies who today claim to oppose the burqa, have knowingly participated in the Islamization of our country. If they are sincere, they should resign immediately from the UMP and join the camp of those who have chosen to defend European civilization.

The MNR knows perfectly well that they will do nothing of the sort and that this false resistance is just another electoral maneuver that will be added to Sarkozy's catalogue of saber-rattling (...)"

I agree wholeheartedly with your views. I've maintained for a long while, that it is not our business what Muslims wear, eat, or whatever. But by the same token it is extreme folly that Muslims have been allowed to settle in the West, and are now a threat to our customs.